Mr. Obvious:

Oh Mo..YOO-HOO..Sarah wants to ride the HOG. She wants to know how that stack of dimes you have is doing.

Wow, that's a hot pick, but sure wish she was holding a hunting rifle as well.

jester:

Mr. Obvious:

Oh Mo..YOO-HOO..Sarah wants to ride the HOG. She wants to know how that stack of dimes you have is doing.

Wow, that's a hot pick, but sure wish she was holding a hunting rifle as well.

---

My vehicle is fuel efficient, it runs off the tears of the frustrated disillusioned remaining packer fans.

Mr. Obvious:

jester:

Mr. Obvious:

Oh Mo..YOO-HOO..Sarah wants to ride the HOG. She wants to know how that stack of dimes you have is doing.

Wow, that's a hot pick, but sure wish she was holding a hunting rifle as well.

OH YEAH! Thanks O!

jester:

Mr. Obvious:

Oh Mo..YOO-HOO..Sarah wants to ride the HOG. She wants to know how that stack of dimes you have is doing.

Wow, that's a hot pick, but sure wish she was holding a hunting rifle as well.

i guess i just don't understand why people think she's hot.  is not being overweight all that it takes for a mid-40s woman to be considered hot? 

Mr. Obvious:

Oh Mo..YOO-HOO..Sarah wants to ride the HOG. She wants to know how that stack of dimes you have is doing.

I've seen her daughter. Looks like she's already ridden a hog.

---

Religion and sex are power plays
Manipulate the people for the money they pay
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards
--- Queensryche

at least she's self aware. 

Mozart1220:

Spartan:

conair124:

the big bang theory i believe points to a beginning of our universe. Or atleast the start of some experiment by some space monkeys.

Unless there is no beginning or no end to our universe which rules out that there was a creator... i dont know which one is more trippy

The Big bang theory is a desperate attempt to answer an age old question in as scientific a way as possible. No, I don't believe this tiny little ball exploded releasing cosmic energy and creating the universe, but you can make people believe just about anything if you just use that nifty little science trick and add well it happened over billions of years. Sure it did.

There is a beginning for everything. I don't know if there is anything that could possibly have no end but I am certain everything has to have a beginning.

The universe is expanding, that much is proven.  Reverse the motion, and what do you get?

There is also residual radiation that is in effect, an "echo" of this massive explosion.

Scientists, using superconducting supercolliders, have "reproduced" particles that existed in the first millisecond after the "big bang".

It is, for all intents and purposes, PROVEN.

Actually, no such thing is proven or even close to being proven, and nobody in the world could possibly know what particles existed in the first millisecond after the mythical first bang.

 

 

---

Spartan:

Mozart1220:

Spartan:

conair124:

the big bang theory i believe points to a beginning of our universe. Or atleast the start of some experiment by some space monkeys.

Unless there is no beginning or no end to our universe which rules out that there was a creator... i dont know which one is more trippy

The Big bang theory is a desperate attempt to answer an age old question in as scientific a way as possible. No, I don't believe this tiny little ball exploded releasing cosmic energy and creating the universe, but you can make people believe just about anything if you just use that nifty little science trick and add well it happened over billions of years. Sure it did.

There is a beginning for everything. I don't know if there is anything that could possibly have no end but I am certain everything has to have a beginning.

The universe is expanding, that much is proven.  Reverse the motion, and what do you get?

There is also residual radiation that is in effect, an "echo" of this massive explosion.

Scientists, using superconducting supercolliders, have "reproduced" particles that existed in the first millisecond after the "big bang".

It is, for all intents and purposes, PROVEN.

Actually, no such thing is proven or even close to being proven, and nobody in the world could possibly know what particles existed in the first millisecond after the mythical first bang.

 

 

You really need to read up more.  Or try the Discovery channel.  Yeah, they know what particles existed. And it's not "myth" it's "science".  A talking snake is "Myth". a 600 year old man living within walking distance of every species on the planet is "myth".  

---

Religion and sex are power plays
Manipulate the people for the money they pay
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards
--- Queensryche

ZING!

Mozart1220:

Spartan:

Mozart1220:

Spartan:

conair124:

the big bang theory i believe points to a beginning of our universe. Or atleast the start of some experiment by some space monkeys.

Unless there is no beginning or no end to our universe which rules out that there was a creator... i dont know which one is more trippy

The Big bang theory is a desperate attempt to answer an age old question in as scientific a way as possible. No, I don't believe this tiny little ball exploded releasing cosmic energy and creating the universe, but you can make people believe just about anything if you just use that nifty little science trick and add well it happened over billions of years. Sure it did.

There is a beginning for everything. I don't know if there is anything that could possibly have no end but I am certain everything has to have a beginning.

The universe is expanding, that much is proven.  Reverse the motion, and what do you get?

There is also residual radiation that is in effect, an "echo" of this massive explosion.

Scientists, using superconducting supercolliders, have "reproduced" particles that existed in the first millisecond after the "big bang".

It is, for all intents and purposes, PROVEN.

Actually, no such thing is proven or even close to being proven, and nobody in the world could possibly know what particles existed in the first millisecond after the mythical first bang.

 

 

You really need to read up more.  Or try the Discovery channel.  Yeah, they know what particles existed. And it's not "myth" it's "science".  A talking snake is "Myth". a 600 year old man living within walking distance of every species on the planet is "myth".  

May i suggest you read up so more as well and don't believe everything you see on the Discovery channel. Some people will listen to anything if you just add in, "it happened over billions of years". Ya see Mo, what happened was all this matter, that did not yet exist, kept spinning around and around and around until it was all crunched and squeezed into this little tiny dot and then kaboom it explodes but not the kind of explosion that destroys, no no, this explosion actually created everything, the entire friggin universe. I know that sounds retarded but just realize it all happened over billions of years and then it'll make perfect sense.

What you're doing is just saying science knows all just because they keep throwing out these theories and it must be true cause it's "science". Fact is you'll find opposition to all these theories even within the scientific community itself. While you ridicule religion for being too unbelievable, the Big Bang theory requires miracles on top of miracles on top of more miracles.

Unlike you, I do not profess to know how it all began. I'm ok with that though cause nobody will ever know how it all began. Maybe when we die we'll find out but who we gonna tell then? While you defy God, you embrace a God-like community who says they have the answers to everything and then they make it up as they go along and you eat it up.

---

Spartan:

Mozart1220:

Spartan:

Mozart1220:

Spartan:

conair124:

the big bang theory i believe points to a beginning of our universe. Or atleast the start of some experiment by some space monkeys.

Unless there is no beginning or no end to our universe which rules out that there was a creator... i dont know which one is more trippy

The Big bang theory is a desperate attempt to answer an age old question in as scientific a way as possible. No, I don't believe this tiny little ball exploded releasing cosmic energy and creating the universe, but you can make people believe just about anything if you just use that nifty little science trick and add well it happened over billions of years. Sure it did.

There is a beginning for everything. I don't know if there is anything that could possibly have no end but I am certain everything has to have a beginning.

The universe is expanding, that much is proven.  Reverse the motion, and what do you get?

There is also residual radiation that is in effect, an "echo" of this massive explosion.

Scientists, using superconducting supercolliders, have "reproduced" particles that existed in the first millisecond after the "big bang".

It is, for all intents and purposes, PROVEN.

Actually, no such thing is proven or even close to being proven, and nobody in the world could possibly know what particles existed in the first millisecond after the mythical first bang.

 

 

You really need to read up more.  Or try the Discovery channel.  Yeah, they know what particles existed. And it's not "myth" it's "science".  A talking snake is "Myth". a 600 year old man living within walking distance of every species on the planet is "myth".  

May i suggest you read up so more as well and don't believe everything you see on the Discovery channel. Some people will listen to anything if you just add in, "it happened over billions of years". Ya see Mo, what happened was all this matter, that did not yet exist, kept spinning around and around and around until it was all crunched and squeezed into this little tiny dot and then kaboom it explodes but not the kind of explosion that destroys, no no, this explosion actually created everything, the entire friggin universe. I know that sounds retarded but just realize it all happened over billions of years and then it'll make perfect sense.

What you're doing is just saying science knows all just because they keep throwing out these theories and it must be true cause it's "science". Fact is you'll find opposition to all these theories even within the scientific community itself. While you ridicule religion for being too unbelievable, the Big Bang theory requires miracles on top of miracles on top of more miracles.

Unlike you, I do not profess to know how it all began. I'm ok with that though cause nobody will ever know how it all began. Maybe when we die we'll find out but who we gonna tell then? While you defy God, you embrace a God-like community who says they have the answers to everything and then they make it up as they go along and you eat it up.

Science is NOT a "God like community" and I'll take that over a talking snake and burning bushes anytime.  And it's not "just" the Discovery channel, that was just an easy place for you to start.

The Big Bang is "accepted" as truth,  because it's clear the universe is expanding.  Revers the film and what do you get? Not only that there is TONS of other evidence to support it.

Science does not claim to "know all" (the Bible does). It claims to use availiable evidence  to formulate "Theories" to explain the world around us. The Bible does NOT.

---

Religion and sex are power plays
Manipulate the people for the money they pay
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards
--- Queensryche

How does one defy that which one does not believe exists?

(Am I defying Odin?  Ra?  The Great Pumpkin?  Bueller?  Bueller?)

 

 

Spartan:

 May i suggest you read up so more as well and don't believe everything you see on the Discovery channel. Some people will listen to anything if you just add in, "it happened over billions of years". Ya see Mo, what happened was all this matter, that did not yet exist, kept spinning around and around and around until it was all crunched and squeezed into this little tiny dot and then kaboom it explodes but not the kind of explosion that destroys, no no, this explosion actually created everything, the entire friggin universe. I know that sounds retarded but just realize it all happened over billions of years and then it'll make perfect sense.

What you're doing is just saying science knows all just because they keep throwing out these theories and it must be true cause it's "science". Fact is you'll find opposition to all these theories even within the scientific community itself. While you ridicule religion for being too unbelievable, the Big Bang theory requires miracles on top of miracles on top of more miracles.

Unlike you, I do not profess to know how it all began. I'm ok with that though cause nobody will ever know how it all began. Maybe when we die we'll find out but who we gonna tell then? While you defy God, you embrace a God-like community who says they have the answers to everything and then they make it up as they go along and you eat it up.

Just because someone doesn't understand the science we have learned doesn't mean it's false.  To try and equate science with religion, as you did by describing it as a god-like community, is folly.  The big bang is not something a scientist just made up.  We can actually see in space back almost to the big bang.  We can tell from the way the universe expands, the way light and gravity can be measured, the way matter has cooled, that the universe came from a small point. 

There's an entire plethora of evidence to support evolution in life on this planet also.  These things aren't junk science. 

But that science doesn't remove the possibility of a god.  Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive.  The smartest thing the religious community could do is stop shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting science and stubbornly denying what's been shown through logic and reasoned learning.

To sneer at science and academia and choose Christian science and bumper sticker sloganeering doesn't advance their cause.

---

the "Che Guevara" of Fans First

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

armagedn:

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

If by Creationism you mean Young Earth Creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, then that's true.

---

the "Che Guevara" of Fans First

bearmick:

armagedn:

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

If by Creationism you mean Young Earth Creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, then that's true.

I liked Genesis when Phil Collins was with them.

---

My vehicle is fuel efficient, it runs off the tears of the frustrated disillusioned remaining packer fans.

Mr. Obvious:

bearmick:

armagedn:

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

If by Creationism you mean Young Earth Creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, then that's true.

I liked Genesis when Phil Collins was with them.

How about Peter Gabriel?

---

This is how a Bears RB should run. Like Walter said..."never die easy."

Mechanic, Left Tackle Mafia.

Here to fix the ones that break down.

bearmick:

armagedn:

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

If by Creationism you mean Young Earth Creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, then that's true.

By Creationism, I mean Mary Magdalene strapping a saddle on a triceratops....

armagedn:

bearmick:

armagedn:

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

If by Creationism you mean Young Earth Creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, then that's true.

By Creationism, I mean Mary Magdalene strapping a saddle on a triceratops....

Ah, "Christian Science".   That and logic are definately mutually exclusive.

---

the "Che Guevara" of Fans First

armagedn:

bearmick:

armagedn:

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

If by Creationism you mean Young Earth Creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, then that's true.

By Creationism, I mean Mary Magdalene strapping a saddle on a triceratops....

Now thats just plain crazy talk, there were no saddles back then.

---

My vehicle is fuel efficient, it runs off the tears of the frustrated disillusioned remaining packer fans.

bearmick:

armagedn:

bearmick:

armagedn:

bearmick:

Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. 

 

Evolution and Creationism, however, are.

If by Creationism you mean Young Earth Creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, then that's true.

By Creationism, I mean Mary Magdalene strapping a saddle on a triceratops....

Ah, "Christian Science".   That and logic are definately mutually exclusive.

I warned you about this.  Don't say I didn't.  (Hell hath no fury.  It really hathen't.)

bearmick:

Spartan:

 May i suggest you read up so more as well and don't believe everything you see on the Discovery channel. Some people will listen to anything if you just add in, "it happened over billions of years". Ya see Mo, what happened was all this matter, that did not yet exist, kept spinning around and around and around until it was all crunched and squeezed into this little tiny dot and then kaboom it explodes but not the kind of explosion that destroys, no no, this explosion actually created everything, the entire friggin universe. I know that sounds retarded but just realize it all happened over billions of years and then it'll make perfect sense.

What you're doing is just saying science knows all just because they keep throwing out these theories and it must be true cause it's "science". Fact is you'll find opposition to all these theories even within the scientific community itself. While you ridicule religion for being too unbelievable, the Big Bang theory requires miracles on top of miracles on top of more miracles.

Unlike you, I do not profess to know how it all began. I'm ok with that though cause nobody will ever know how it all began. Maybe when we die we'll find out but who we gonna tell then? While you defy God, you embrace a God-like community who says they have the answers to everything and then they make it up as they go along and you eat it up.

Just because someone doesn't understand the science we have learned doesn't mean it's false.  To try and equate science with religion, as you did by describing it as a god-like community, is folly.  The big bang is not something a scientist just made up.  We can actually see in space back almost to the big bang.  We can tell from the way the universe expands, the way light and gravity can be measured, the way matter has cooled, that the universe came from a small point. 

Actually, the Big Bang is a theory some scientist just made up. His name was Georges Lemaitre and he was a professor of physics, astronomer, and Roman Catholic priest. Then others come along to put their 2 cents in. This is how it happens with many theories.

Does the universe actually expand? Many scientists think not. The concept of an expanding universe would call for the recession of galaxies meaning the number of galaxies in a given volume, as in their density, would forever decrease.  This would violate the continuity equation of physics. So what do you do and who do you believe when science debunks science?

There's an entire plethora of evidence to support evolution in life on this planet also.  These things aren't junk science. 

What does evolution have to do with the Big Bang?

But that science doesn't remove the possibility of a god.  Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive.  The smartest thing the religious community could do is stop shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting science and stubbornly denying what's been shown through logic and reasoned learning.

I have never said or even believe that science removes the possibility of God. Who's rejecting science because they believe it to be anti-God? Better question is who's taking science to a God-like plateau? You reject God but then basically say science is all-knowing, so much so that you accept theories as fact, and whoever doesn't believe that is a fool.  

To sneer at science and academia and choose Christian science and bumper sticker sloganeering doesn't advance their cause.

If you're a unbiased person with an open mind you see there are simply way too many variables and unknowns for any science to be able to tell you, for fact, when and how exactly it all came to be. I can accept that, why can't you?

---

Spartan:

Actually, the Big Bang is a theory some scientist just made up. His name was Georges Lemaitre and he was a professor of physics, astronomer, and Roman Catholic priest. Then others come along to put their 2 cents in. This is how it happens with many theories.

Does the universe actually expand? Many scientists think not. The concept of an expanding universe would call for the recession of galaxies meaning the number of galaxies in a given volume, as in their density, would forever decrease.  This would violate the continuity equation of physics. So what do you do and who do you believe when science debunks science?

There's an entire plethora of evidence to support evolution in life on this planet also.  These things aren't junk science. 

What does evolution have to do with the Big Bang?

But that science doesn't remove the possibility of a god.  Evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive.  The smartest thing the religious community could do is stop shooting themselves in the foot by rejecting science and stubbornly denying what's been shown through logic and reasoned learning.

I have never said or even believe that science removes the possibility of God. Who's rejecting science because they believe it to be anti-God? Better question is who's taking science to a God-like plateau? You reject God but then basically say science is all-knowing, so much so that you accept theories as fact, and whoever doesn't believe that is a fool.  

To sneer at science and academia and choose Christian science and bumper sticker sloganeering doesn't advance their cause.

If you're a unbiased person with an open mind you see there are simply way too many variables and unknowns for any science to be able to tell you, for fact, when and how exactly it all came to be. I can accept that, why can't you?

I think you're using the word "theory" in the same way as one might use "random idea".  The big bang, the age of the universe, these are all thoeries with so much evidence supporting them that they're pretty much accepted as fact.  They're not random whimsical shot in the dark concepts.

I clearly said that none of this removes the possibility of a god, so I'm not sure why you're accusing me of rejecting god and accepting science as all knowing.  Again, they're not mutually exclusive. 

---

the "Che Guevara" of Fans First

bearmick:

I clearly said that none of this removes the possibility of a god 

armagedn:

bearmick:

I clearly said that none of this removes the possibility of a god 

Thor is a pretty cool one.  Valhalla wouldn't be such a bad afterlife.  Sign me up.

---

the "Che Guevara" of Fans First